Wildlife reserve for Aston Vale!! Sign the petition!

Many thanks to Trisha and Co for updating myself and other greens about what happened in Ashton Vale (see post below) without the proper permissions and what some of the campaign ideas are. The positive aspect was seeing the great photographic, video and written records of the area that have been put together and how the community has come together with a real spirit and great ideas well worth supporting (you can sign the e-petition calling for a wildlife reserve for Ashton Vale here and locals are in the process of setting up a campaign website here). It was really very depressing to see the damaged land up close though. The ripping up of hundreds of metres of hedgerow here was an act of wanton vandalism and I hope that Bristol City Council prosecutes those responsible (though I'm not holding my breath!). The establishment of a nature reserve in the area would help to make up for the damage caused as well as providing a small green barrier between existing homes and what is likely to be an area where a lot of development will happen. Will the landowner, Bristol City Chairman Steve Lansdown, help to establish a protected habitat for wildlife like robins given that his '...club's nickname is "The Robins", and a robin featured on the club's badge from 1976 to 1994' (wiki). Is this too much to ask for?

Ashton Vale visit

Going to visit the site of this wanton vandalism of green space in Ashton Vale, South Bristol this weekend with a few green friends, to talk to residents. Great damage already done of course, but lets see what the latest information is and if we can help in some way.



Story in the Bristol Evening Post here.

Now is the time to invest, invest, invest in going green!!

The poorest people in the world are suffering most from climate change and will be the worst affected by climate change to come. The map starkly illustrates this. They need richer countries, who have produced the climate problem in the process of becoming rich, to act seriously and urgently. Higher temperatures mean many of the world's poorest areas face: less water availability; lower crop yields; degraded resources such as woods/forests, biodiversity available; higher disease incidence; weather extremes from prolonged drought to sudden extreme flooding, extreme temperatures to violent storms (see this report on scientific evidence from the IPCC for instance).



That moves have been made to dilute and undermine valuable work on tackling climate change done by the EU is thus very worrying and shortsighted (details here). Governments across Europe, not least our own, are using the current financial crisis to excuse tough action on climate - they are willing to spend billions bailing out banks but action to benefit the world's poorest is not a priority. The potential impacts of the climate crisis are enormous for all of us and you'd think that the effects of not planning, regulating, and investing for both the short, the medium and long term are clearly illustrated by the financial crisis! Action to genuinely tackle climate is just not an option - clearly our society and within it our economy (and within that our financial system) exist within and are dependent on our environment.

Investment needed to build secure, stable, climate-friendly green economies around the globe is just the kind of investment that would help tackle recession too. Hundreds of thousands of jobs could result in Europe alone from the right kind of policies on just energy efficiency and wind power, also excellent for cutting carbon and tackling climate change. This could be repeated around the globe, building green infrastructure in countries both rich and poor. Scope for growth from green investments is very high!

Details on the Green New Deal.
Some background on Roosevelt's New Deal of the 1930s.

Update: interesting to see that Jonathon Porritt, Chair of the Sustainable Development Commission has made basically the same point as this post on his blog.

This post is part of Blog Action Day 08 - Poverty

Complaint about complaint!

Sent the email below to Bristol City Council today, marked for the urgent attention of Jan Ormondroyd, Chief Executive, Bristol City Council. There appears to be disarray in the handling of my complaint and so I've complained about it!

______________________________________________

Please see below details of a complaint I made to the council via the online form available. This was submitted on 18 Sept. I was promised a full and formal response within 15 working days and have not received it. The time period elapsed some time ago and I have followed up on this through both a reminder email, a statement submitted to a full council meeting (14 Oct) and through phoning the complaints dept today and yesterday.

All I have had is a brief indication in a few emails who would be dealing with my points (the last information I have is that Richard Mond would be dealing with it, though it was previously with another person) with some brief discussion on issues. I recently sent a reminder email to Mr Mond asking for the latest on the progress of my complaint but received no response to this. Complaints are very unhappy that the proper procedures have not been followed by those officers dealing with my complaint and I had a conversation early this afternoon with Tim Sheppard from Complaints who is now contacting Richard Mond on my behalf to speed the process up from here. I 've not been contacted this afternoon by Mr Mond.

I'm very concerned about time slipping by however (my complaint has a strong bearing on a planning application that I want to comment on and object to and the time within which I can do this is running out) and thought I would email you too. Mr Mond did not give me information on the stage my complaint had reached, thus this email, which I think means my complaint is at stage 3 (?). I've been advised by my local councillor to contact the local govt ombudsman on the substance of my complaint and the process by which it has (or rather has not) been handled - I'm in the process of looking into doing this now and this message is copied to the local govt ombudsman.

I look forward to your response with interest.

___________________________________________________________

Bristol City Council Complaint

I have two complaints about what appear to be procedural errors on the
part of the council in relation to land on the Bristol to Bath Railway
Path (where the development of the former chocolate factory is now
proposed).

1. I am very concerned that the council's own procedures on green spaces
disposal or change of use has not and is not being applied to the green
corridor that is the Bristol to Path Railway Path.

The Parks and Green Spaces Strategy mentions the Bristol to Bath Railway
Path as an example of a significant and important green space. Yet it
seems that a strip of land which is council owned has either been sold-off
or is the subject of an in-principle agreement to sell before an Area
Green Space Plan covering the area has been drawn up and consulted upon.

This procedure is clearly outlined in the strategy and so I cant
understand why it has not been followed.

I'm also very concerned that a week ago I emailed Cabinet Member Cllr
Rosalie Walker for clarification of the status/designation of the land and
have not even received an acknowledgement, yet alone a prompt reply.

2. I am also very concerned that the plans for development on the strip of
land at Greenbank that I refer to above have not been subject to an
Environmental Impact Assessment as described by an EU Directive, even
though the directive is supposed to be interpreted and applied broadly in
order to make environmental protection effective.

Ensure that procedures outlined in the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy are
followed and applied to all green land along the Bristol to Bath Railway
Path.

Draw up an Area Green Space Plan, after public consulation, covering the
Bristol to Bath Railway Path green spaces, before any land is actually
sold and review urgently any in-principle agreement to sell council-owned
land on the path.

Inform me of the status/designation of the land in question, explaining,
if required, the reasons why the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy does not
cover the green spaces along the Bristol to Bath Railway Path.

Explain why an email to a cabinet member has not even been acknowledged, a
week after it was sent.

Urgently review whether the EU Environmental Impact Assessment procedure
should be applied to developments on/near the Bristol to Bath Railway
Path, interpreting the directive and its use as was intended by its
authors ie broadly.

Tuppence prudently, fruitfully, frugally invested in the ...bank?

This clip from Mary Poppins seems strangely relevant to today's financial chaos (with Bristol City Council having £8 million in failed Icelandic banks for instance). Michael causes a run on the bank and so obviously was not convinced that his tuppence would be prudently, fruitfully, frugally invested in the...bank! Who can blame him! Try http://debtonation.org/ to read about green thinking on economics.

Vogons on Bristol City Council sell off Filwood Park

The sell-off of Filwood Park by the council is an apalling act ('They sold our park and didn't tell us', Bristol Evening Post front page, Oct 10). Its only fair that the council should stick by its own policy on green spaces. This is to draw up Area Green Space Plans through local consultation before doing anything with land. Such plans would determine issues of land quality and value, uses and any possible disposal/development.


I currently have an official complaint in to the council because they have an in-principle agreement to sell green space on the Bristol to Bath Railway Path to the so-called ‘cycle-houses’ developers without an Area Green Space Plan agreed beforehand. They seem to have a habit of doing this, having sold off Filwood Park! Are there other examples like this? As I write this I still have no formal reply from the council and the 15 working days I was told it would take are up!


The council said the sell-off of Filwood park was 'well advertised, with notices on lampposts...classified ads and public meetings'. This reminds me of the opening scenes of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, where Arthur Dent finds out that his house is to be demolished for a by-pass the day before the bulldozers turn up - the dialogue with Prosser (in charge of the bulldozing) then goes:

Mr Prosser said: "You were quite entitled to make any suggestions or protests at the appropriate time you know."
"Appropriate time?" hooted Arthur. "Appropriate time? The first I knew about it was when a workman arrived at my home yesterday. I asked him if he'd come to clean the windows and he said no he'd come to demolish the house. He didn't tell me straight away of course. Oh no. First he wiped a couple of windows and charged me a fiver. Then he told me."
"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine month."
"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anybody or anything."
"But the plans were on display ..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a torch."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard."
A cloud passed overhead. It cast a shadow over Arthur Dent as he lay propped up on his elbow in the cold mud. It cast a shadow over Arthur Dent's house. Mr Prosser frowned at it.
"It's not as if it's a particularly nice house," he said.
"I'm sorry, but I happen to like it."
"You'll like the bypass."
"Oh shut up," said Arthur Dent. "Shut up and go away, and take your bloody bypass with you. You haven't got a leg to stand on and you know it." (see the clip on YouTube).




Rather than behave like the Vogons in the Hitchhikers Guide, building over green space after so-called consultation and information of a very poor standard...


"People of Earth, your attention please," a voice said, and it was wonderful. Wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion levels so low as to make a brave man weep."This is Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz of the Galactic Hyperspace Planning Council," the voice continued. "As you will no doubt be aware, the plans for development of the outlying regions of the Galaxy require the building of a hyperspatial express route through your star system, and regrettably your planet is one of those scheduled for demolition. The process will take slightly less that two of your Earth minutes. Thank you." (see clip on YouTube)


...the council need to ensure people are getting the benefits of parks. In an urban area open, green spaces are vital to the quality of our lives, offering relief from the all too common congestion and other negative effects of development. There are self-evident leisure, recreational, entertainment, sporting and health benefits in open, green spaces. They are a way of connecting with and appreciating the natural world vital to wellbeing and to encouraging respect for nature. We sorely need this respect in order to build the green attitudes needed to fight extremely serious environmental (and thus security) threats.

Parks and green spaces provide key ecological and environmental function benefits. There is storm water drainage and thus flood protection, as the land soaks up, temporarily stores and then gradually releases rain. Green spaces take carbon dioxide from the air and thus help fight climate change (losing open space is thus as good as adding carbon to the air!). There is the provision of wildlife habitat and food supply, which aids biodiversity. Worth protecting and enhancing isn’t it!!

Petition supporting ultra light rail

Ultra light rail is a smart, highly efficient technology - please sign this petition in support of its use in Bristol: http://epetitions.bristol.gov.uk/petition.php?id=219

The petitioners request that Bristol City Council supports an ultra light tram Rapid Transit system. We oppose the current bus Rapid Transit proposal, the South Bristol Ring Road and the urban extensions, which they both are designed to serve.

Dont panic/We're doomed (?)

Who is now looking over the horizon to see what's coming next and preparing appropriately for it? I've read an awful lot about the urgent action taken to protect banking because of the credit crunch but these are uncertain economic times because of high fuel and food prices, climate change impacts and massive rates of increase in resource consumption in fast growing economies. No better time than now to produce plans to put our economy (and the world economy) on a genuinely secure, stable and sustainable footing. Where is this planning ahead?? Isn't the lack of planning ahead for security, stability and sustainability part of the reason for the current economic chaos?

The BBC reports that, 'The government has announced a £50bn ($88bn) package to prop up eight of the largest banks and building societies. In return, the government would receive shares in those institutions.

A further £200bn would be made available by the Bank of England to provide the banking system with much-needed liquidity.

A special company will also be set up to provide up to £250bn in loan guarantees to banks and building societies.

The announcement came after UK banking shares plunged on 7 October and the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) warned that Britain was already in a recession which could see unemployment rise by 350,000 by next year.

Will economic rescue packages like this (and the one in the US) work? It's basically a case of 'dont panic' and wait and see according to what I've heard. Its far from planning ahead and putting the economy on a sustainable footing eg by massively boosting energy and food security!

The BBC also reported this recently, 'The UK should cut its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050, according to a panel set up by the government to advise on climate change.

It says that the target should cover all sectors of the economy, including emissions from planes and ships.'

These boots are made for walking

I've been playing around with the what this website, http://www.walkit.com/, can provide. For example when I walk 1.4 miles to the Open University regional office in Portwall Lane (BS1 6ND) from home (BS4 2HX) to deliver a tutorial for work the website shows that I've avoided emitting 0.45kg of carbon dioxide car pollution (or 0.2 kg of bus pollution) - click picture to see all figures. Take a look and see how much carbon you could save or are saving by walking (the site is also useful for route planning, journey times, calories burnt!!).

The site's about section says: We think walking in and around town can often be a smart choice. No timetables to keep to, no journey delays, no overcrowding, healthy, green, free, direct, access to services (and sunlight!) en route.

We don’t in any way pretend that you can substitute walking for all the urban car/bus/taxi/tube trips you make. We do, however, want to at least help you make more informed decisions about whether you choose to walk for all, or part, of any given journey.

Light rail efficiency advantage

Great to see some pressure for trams/light rail in Bristol (see here). Some of the ensuing online debate mentioned only the disadvantages of trams/light rail but all technologies have both pros and cons to be weighed up. Trams and light rail have some significant factors in their favour and should be deployed where they are viable - they are up to twice as energy efficient as buses and therefore use much less fuel and produce much less carbon pollution. This could prove to be a major cost advantage in times of high fuel prices. The key is to use this technology in the best locations, after full and proper assessment - I dont think this has this has been done in Bristol.

When to dig and when not to dig

On what basis does the Bristol Evening Post say today, in a full page report 'People in Brislington have welcomed the idea of a ring road..'? The report only quotes a few people, so how many are we talking about? A majority? Has there been a survey/poll? Could I not say with equal validity that people in Brislington have spoken out against the ring road, with the increased environmental footprint and split communities it will bring?? This is a major local issue that has stirred up very strong feelings amongst local people and it deserves to be reported on factually and to a good standard.

As for the ring road issue itself - we are in an unsustainability hole and need to stop digging! How many city's are there in the UK with complete ring roads that have massive congestion and pollution problems? All of them!

Where have people been if they still think more roads will solve congestion and pollution...? Since the best scientific evidence says our current transport habits are unsustainable any council or govt that continues the habits of the past are irresponsibly taking us further into a hole not out of it!

I agree with Mike Landen, chairman of the Alliance against the South Bristol Ring Road, when he said:

"A dual carriageway will impede people's access to amenities and open spaces and will have a disproportionate impact on the young, the elderly and those without access to private motor vehicles."

"It will create a physical barrier between where children live and where they go to school."

We need a different pattern of development to meet economic and social needs, community-owned public transport, better bus and train information, lower fares, a strategic transport authority, prepaid 'smart' multimodal ticketting, and a serious transport hub at Temple Meads - this is the sort of action that will tackle congestion not more roads.

EfficienCity: multimedia-packed interactive virtual city

I recommend a visit to EfficienCity on the Greenpeace website. There you will find the most innovative ways to create an efficient, clean and climate-friendly town being implemented in the UK brought together and represented virtually. People in EfficienCity enjoy secure energy supplies, cheaper bills, and cleaner air. No need for coal and nuclear power when you can have a green future with efficiency and decentralised energy. This is the smart, up to date approach to heating and lighting!

Decentralised energy is the opposite of our present, massively wasteful energy system which was designed when we hadn't even heard of climate change and features 80% waste, mostly into the air, by the time energy reaches homes from large, remote power stations. It’s smart to think that we should generate electricity, and capture the 'waste' heat at the same time! Combined Heat and Power (CHP) schemes in EfficienCity, do this.

CHP is efficient (up to 95% in Denmark), decentralised, usually sited in the towns and cities right where the electricity and heat will be used. Efficiencies of CHP plus efficiencies in the home through insulation and higher minimum efficiency standards for appliances eliminates profligate waste.

CHP runs on several fuel types including fossil fuels like natural gas and greener fuels like biomass from expanded forestry and biogas from farm waste/food waste. Build a CHP plant to burn one fuel and switch to greener fuels as and when available - great for the transition to sustainability!

EfficienCity’s local renewable energy sources (wind, sunlight, tides, waves, rivers, underground springs, the earth itself..) are abundant. Innovative technologies are fast developing. Government estimates that UK wind, wave and tidal resources could meet 40 per cent of our energy needs by 2020. It needs a proper energy strategy, investment on the right scale and political leadership to make it happen everywhere.

Decentralised energy is completely scalable and flexible, from a tiny CHP plant in a supermarket or an enormous industrial plant like Immingham, a single wind turbine like the one at Manchester City's stadium or a massive wind farm like the forthcoming London Array. Systems can be installed much faster than huge power plants and tailored to fit local needs. EfficienCity's local, diverse energy sources don’t rely on imports. Hundreds of small energy generators instead of a few major ones means far lower risk of a large system failure. Decentralised energy approaches are very cost-effective – govt figures say efficiency measures alone can save consumers £12 billion a year, paying for themselves.

Energy from decentralised systems can currently be more expensive per kilowatt hour than eg coal but because only 37 per cent of the average British electricity bill is for the electricity (the rest goes to propping up the wasteful infrastructure) the total cost can be less.

Non-dependence on the fossil fuel market, means being protected from massive price increases of gas and oil that we’ve seen of late (plus any future price rises, lack of availability). With climate change already happening best science says we need to avoid fossil fuels.

Mandelson, Myners, more of the same madness...

When needing to get out of a hole stop digging! Peter Mandelson is one of the key architects of the last eleven years of New Labour Government along with Blair and Brown. Look at where their shaping of the UK economy and their contribution to the global economy has brought us! Mandelson is an expert in how to dig holes like the one we are in! He's not the man to turn to to help get us out and has not been elected by anyone for some time (its not yet been made clear how he will be made accountable).

Green Party Leader Caroline Lucas MEP put Mandelson's return to Government this way,

"If there was ever a time to put the high priest of corporate globalisation in charge of regulating our wayward economy, this isn't it. You might as well get Al Capone to run a young offenders institution.'

"As EU trade commissioner, Mandelson has bullied his way through countless developing countries, demanding the sell-off of public services and trade rules for corporate convenience instead of public protection. Is that really what we want for the UK economy too?"

Its a similar 'hole digging' as opposed to getting us out of a hole story for Paul Myners. He has never been elected and according to the Bristol Blogger was 'a director of GLG a £25bn hedge fund responsible for the kind of short selling that the Labour government is now blaming...for their financial crisis.' In spite of this Myners 'was appointed Minister for the City of the Goverment of the United Kingdom in October 2008, when it was announced he would be elevated to the peerage. He was chairman of the Guardian Media Group, publisher of The Guardian and The Observer newspapers, and chairman of Land Securities Group. He is a former Chairman of Marks & Spencer and Deputy Chair of PowerGen. He holds a number of third sector posts, including Chair of the Trustees of the Tate gallery and Chair of the The Low Pay Commission.' (wiki).

War on Want's view, World Development Movement's view on Mandelson.

Wellbeing not growth, sustainable transport not a south Bristol ring road

Today's Bristol Evening Post reports that 'Plans to complete Bristol's ring road with a link across South Bristol will be put before the public next month.
A scheme is being put together to create a quicker transport link between the A370, the A38 and the existing A4174 ring road across the southern half of the city.'

We need to think and plan differently, with our health and wellbeing uppermost, instead of growth of this kind. Where does reducing our carbon emissions and our ecological footprint come in to these plans?? The very best available scientific evidence says that 'business as usual' plans for more roads, masses of houses, expanding air travel and loss of green space cannot be sustained.

More on the rong road issue:

http://www.southbristolringroad.co.uk/

http://www.bristolgreenparty.org.uk/south/ringroadbriefing.htm

Kerry McCarthy MP backs 'cycle house' plans (and fails to consider changes to parts of them).

Letter to my MP, sent today.

Kerry

Please see below a copy of what I've just posted on your blog about the cycle houses development. I'm concerned that this issue is fully and formally taken up by you and that you accurately appreciate my position. Note that I have previously emailed you on this issue.
__________________________________________________________________
Kerry, you have been mislead by developers, in this post are positively campaigning for the development as it is currently planned and give no thought to any changes people are proposing, whether small or large, either in the whole development or some small part of it. This is close-minded and unwise and its extremely disappointing to know that you do not take a proactive interest this green space in your constituency eg by playing your part in seeing that the proper procedures are gone through. You state,

'I'm told that none of the people who have been opposing the cycle houses on blogs - Chris, Glenn, Adam, Blogger (and yes, we do know who you are) - have been in touch with the developers directly'

This is total rubbish! I'm going to be the third person to say here that I have contacted them directly. I blogged about emailing them and had a letter in the Bristol Evening Post to say I had too! Like the Bristol Blogger I've had zero response and so they do not appear to be open to considering the changes I think are needed in one small part of the development (note one small part). I've also emailed you about this issue and have no response other than from the auto-reply system. I still have no reply from Bristol's Cabinet (Cllr Rosalie Walker) and still wait a council response to a formal complaint I put in about the procedures they have (or rather have not) followed.

It is inaccurate to describe me as an opponent of the cycle house development - I have not been opposing the development as a whole, though it should be preceeded by the formulation of an Area Green Space Plan as is council policy. What I have in fact been doing is calling for, (repeatedly on my blog and previously on your blog Kerry) the scaling back of and change in the plans in one area, the east, in order to avoid the worst damage to wildlife and green area character. I guess it would be in the interests of the developers and perhaps you Kerry to misrepresent the case of opponents on political grounds.

After a heated exchange on one of your previous posts(Back to work) you'll recall making this statement about me

'to be frank I'm fed up with the manner in which you 'demand' answers'

because you felt I should wait until after your site visit. What I said to spark this extraordinary reaction from you was this,

'The Bristol Blogger is right that the greenery along the Bristol to Bath Railway Path is described in the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy as significant...so why no Area Green Space Plan and why no Environmental Impact Assessment..'.

I note that after your site visit you still dont address the specific points I raised. It is backwards to sell off and plan to build over publicly owned green space without an Area Green Space plan (council policy) first being drawn up is it not?? The relevant EU Directive states that the Environmental Impact Assessment process should be interpreted and applied broadly and yet no EIA has been deemed necessary for these plans - why?? There are wide implications here for how the city deals with green spaces issues and you should be looking into the matter further. I'll email you a copy of this comment because I want to ensure your full and formal response as my MP.
___________________________________________________________________

I look forward to your reply.
Yours sincerely
Glenn Vowles

Cabot Circus, Consumerism, Capitalism

If having a huge new shopping centre like Cabot Circus helped us to live happier, healthier, fairer, greener lives I’d be all for it but the opposite is the truth! I'm one of the people the Bristol Evening Post Comment of 26 Sept, 'Thanks due for our new retail centre', called 'cynics, doubters and critics' but far from 'sneering and carping' as the comment said, my case against developments like this is a perfectly rational and reasonable one.The celebration and advocacy of mass consumerism, the belief that the more we consume the better off we are, from all Bristol’s mainstream politicians and the media is remarkable, particularly in these pretty unprecedented times of credit crunch, economic downturn, resource depletion and environmental degradation. The system, with its short-termist banking, sleeping regulators and politicians who have sucked-up and basked in the glow of short-term ‘success’, allows a small number of people to take the profit whilst society pays the costs. As I write I’m watching news of crisis meetings in America between Bush, McCain and Obama, some of which have ended in shouting matches, about an absolutely massive $700 billion (£380 billion) bailout plan to save the US and thus the world economy! There are doubts about this plan and whether we have the leadership and the mechanisms needed to solve this problem.

Debt-funded mass consumption around the globe is causing extremely serious and urgent economic and environmental problems. So what do we do in Bristol? Build a massive shopping centre, including one of Europes biggest car parks!! Mass consumerist societies eat up resources (sparking oil price rises) like there is no tomorrow and spew out vast amounts of climate change causing carbon and very large amounts of all kinds of wastes, though some consumers are in denial about the effects of their high consumption. Cabot Circus fights against Bristol's 'green capital' ambition. It raises the city environmental footprint, already several times what it should be for sustainability, even further. This just adds fuel to the fire of economic downturn, social division and environmental decline. Its like being beaten on the head continually with a stick and asking for more, instead of ducking and doing something to stop the beating!!

Despite this Bristol's media has been in a positive frenzy for days now about the opening of Cabot Circus, producing some great reactions on local blogs (in particular the Bristol Blogger and the Green Bristol Blog). The BBC have given a great deal of free advertising to shops, playing their part in getting people to identify strongly with the products or services they consume, especially those commercial brand names with obvious status-enhancing appeal, even though they are not supposed to advertise (see Bristol Blogger). Often luxuries and unnecessary consumer products are social messages, all about keeping up with the Joneses. Any substitution of healthy human relationships, often lacking in our communities, for relationships with products or brand names is very unhealthy. Some say mass consumerism is a social control process, part of cultural leadership in modern society.

The Bristol Evening Post produced page after page of coverage, demonstrating how our culture is thoroughly permeated by mass consumerism. Bizarrely it has simultaneously published stories of shops and consumers in trouble due to the credit crunch (example here)! You could not make it up! They have painted a picture of optimism and happiness about the Cabot Circus launch over several editions but the evidence shows that mass consumption make us less happy!

It is satisfaction, security, stability and fulfillment that makes us happy but product advertisers and marketers (helped massively by the BBC, Bristol Evening Post and mainstream politicians...) have no interest in these things. It’s in their interest to see that needs become wants and that the wants are perpetuated. Thus mass consumerism favours selling products that wear out or break, instead of being made to last. Ever-changing fashion is similarly favoured because purchases in a nearly-new and good condition ‘must’ be replaced or you ‘wont be trendy’. This maintains sales and maximises profits, from which a small number of people gain. Fostering obsession with super-rich celebrities helps here (they feature in many ads, often dominate the media and are courted by politicians).

Local councillors and MPs have enthused about shops too. Bristol City Council Leader Helen Holland said that Cabot Circus 'is a quantum leap' beyond anyone's wildest dreams! Cant she dream any wilder than shops? There must be socialists from Labour's past turning in their graves! My MP Kerry McCarthy described Cabot Circus as ‘pretty stunning’ and sparked quite a hot debate on her blog.

All I seem to have succeeded in doing by persistently arguing the green case with my MP is annoying her. Cabot Circus wont prominently feature local products, quite the opposite. People will not on the whole walk or cycle there, the focus is on driving to the very large car park (see Green Bristol Blog on poor cycle access). Genuinely green items like recycled products or second-hand goods are very far from what it’s about. Plastic bags will be given out left right and centre!! The focus of Cabot Circus is more global economy than local economy, more about a small number of people getting rich than local people meeting their needs. Would it not have been much more valuable to individuals, neighbourhoods and communities in Bristol to get together a proper strategy to maintain and develop shops, services and jobs in each locality? We need development to be localised. Cabot Circus is a million miles from local production for local needs yet this is the pattern of development we need for a happier, healthier, fairer, greener and more convivial city!

MPs and jokes

MP Kerry McCarthy has a quiz on her blog that I've been looking at. All questions are about identifying main party frontbench MPs - Q14 "As sharp as a blade and currently underrated" is one I've puzzled over (after having a good laugh at the Bristol Bloggers joke answer of Dan Norris!). There aren't many I regard as sharp!

Is Dan Norris MP as sharp and underrated as Roger Bailey of BBC comedy My Family fame? Well there are certain similarities.

Treasure nature, then vote to build on it - Labour Councillor Colin Smith

I was saddened and angered at the report that local conservationists failed to save a nature site in Bedminster. The local paper reports that the site is '...in a conservation area and a Site of Nature Conservation Interest' (see what these land designations are supposed to mean here and here). Such sites enhance the quality and wellbeing of our lives.

Malago Valley Conservation Group spoke of badger disturbance, bird-nesting habitat loss... Badgers are a species protected by law, including their own Act of Parliament.

These two comments in the local paper from Bedminster Labour Councillor Colin Smith got to me most of all. After visiting the site he said,

'It is a green lung for South Bristol to be treasured and it is almost secret.'

Despite, apparently, treasuring the nature site ie valuing as precious, Cllr Smith said,

'I'm going to have to support the employment issue' to attempt to justify the fact that he had just voted in favour of building over the green space as someone who sits on the relevant planning committee. Sheer hypocrisy!!

And what is the evidence that allowing the nature site to be cleared, hard-surfaced, fenced and lit will produce more jobs? All we have is the word of James Hennessy speaking on behalf of demolition group Wring, who indicated: that the company had employed many people locally over a long time [including a significant period co-existing with the wildlife!]; current jobs would be secured and the prospect of new jobs would be created. Not exactly detailed hard and fast evidence is it and no indication of the scale/size of any job creation.

How far and for how long can we and should we go down this 'treasuring of nature but then building over it' road? What are the limits? What do the terms conservation area, site of nature conservation interest and protected species actually mean in practice?

Conditions attached to the planning permission are better than nothing but far from solving any fundamental problems they may well mean people continue to permit developments that they should not. In this case conditions include ecological management and wildlife protection measures and landscaping. However, the area occupied by nature will be vastly cut and so there will be a very high net loss of habitat and food supply, resulting in loss of wildlife.

The local paper reports that 'If any badger setts are found on the site [they did not look beforehand then!] Wring will have to make arrangements for the animals to be accomodated nearby' . Moving badgers would no doubt distress them and no doubt they will be both stressed and have their survival threatened once 'accomodated nearby'. It may well be that the area of habitat and the food supply will be smaller.

Planning Bill: ungreen; undemocratic

Very happy to support Friends of the Earth's campaign on the new Planning Bill. That the Bill currently makes no mention of climate change and would thus allow major road, airport or power station developments to proceed without considering this major environmental impact speaks volumes about the Govt approach to tackling - or rather not tackling - this issue. Their thinking is just not joined up. I've just sent the message below, produced by Friends of the Earth, to my MP Kerry McCarthy, who I've been very critical of in several debates on her blog eg here. I will blog about any reply I receive.

I believe it is vital for our Government to protect the right to be involved in decisions that affect our community, and ensure we consider climate change when deciding major infrastructure projects such as roads, airports and power stations.

In a recent opinion poll, 95% of people surveyed believed that climate change should be considered in decisions on major projects.

The Planning Bill creates a new Infrastructure Planning Commission that is undemocratic and unaccountable. It also creates a system of national policy statements which outline separate rather than integrated policy on major infrastructure.

I believe that the elected Government should take the big decisions on major infrastructure and should consider climate change.

Please speak in support of an amendment to the Planning Bill which states the need to consider climate change on the face of the Bill.

BBC report on previous opposition to the Planning Bill here.

Make the right energy choices!

Green energy policy is first about efficiency and conservation, including funding free insulation for all homes (details here) which has the major advantages of avoiding means testing and maximising energy (and money) saving. The health, security, comfort and quality of our lives would all be much better for it - and the energy security of our country! We of course favour renewable energy sources like wind, solar and tidal power in general terms too. Getting a proper overall energy strategy is vital if we are to have the right emphasis on the right kinds of technologies in the right places eg Greens reject a Barrage across the Severn in favour of other tidal energy technologies like tidal lagoons and tidal stream turbines. Greens in the South West and in Wales are supporting the Stop the Barrage Now campaign, which has launched recently, and I'm very happy to be doing the liaison with this campaign for the party.

Scrutinising plans and proposing changes...local democracy, not a problem!!

Councillor Abdul Malik does not seem to want much public debate about selling, then building on publicly owned green space, rich in wildlife, on the Bristol to Bath Railway Path ('Call for unity over factory development', Bristol Evening Post, Sept 20). He does not want light shone on the issue I guess (?). Very unquestioning as far as the development is concerned. He contradicted himself by saying he did not want ‘arguments to threaten the future of the site’ (employing a fear tactic..) but later said that he had ‘concerns about over-development’! Scrutiny of plans and seeking after any necessary changes is an essential part of the local democratic process! Does he just want people to accept proposals?



Over 200 local people have signed a petition on this issue and so concern is certainly significant (and growing as people find out the facts). Also, given that the Bristol to Bath Railway Path is used by large numbers of people from all across Bristol and from outside it, there are a wide range of stakeholders interested in the green nature of the path and its protection. There is a much bigger issue here of the procedures that should be used to decide on land selling and change of use, given that the council has plans to flog off more of Bristol's green spaces year on year!

Public investigation and debate, which Councillor Abdul Malik seems surprisingly reluctant to have, and which has been lead by bloggers (see here too), has shed a lot of light on this issue which we would not otherwise have had. Its been vital in revealing how intensive the development is and how the process has lacked openness. The plans need to be scaled back and changed to avoid the worst impacts, which have been a big concern to the council's own Nature Conservation Officer. I’ve written direct to the George Ferguson, Chairman of the architects involved about this and copied the message to the council and developers but so far have no reply nor even an acknowledgement.

Change these plans to stop harm to wildlife

I understand why George Ferguson wants to emphasise what he sees as the upside of the 'cycle houses' development planned on/near the Bristol to Bath Railway Path (see report on plans in today's local paper). He is of course not an independent, dispassionate voice in relation to it though as he is Chairman of the architects of the plans (Acanthus Ferguson Mann)! He has apparently been intimately involved in discussions with the council about land purchase according to local blogs and has talked up how innovative the ideas behind the plans are! He would emphasise the positive wouldn't he.

A balanced, dispassionate, analytical approach would also consider the downside of the plans, in particular the impacts on wildlife, including protected species such as badgers and slow worms due to the loss of 150 metres of mature hedgerow on part of the site under current designs. Attempting to compensate for habitat loss, as is proposed, is highly problematic and inadequate. Will the council, developers and architects respond to significant public concerns and react to ensure that the plans are modified so that hedgerow and wildlife impacts are removed? This would also contribute significantly to retaining some of the user amenity value of the site due to its current green and pleasant character. I thought Bristol City Council had a Parks and Green Spaces Strategy to safeguard high quality greenery though its obviously not being applied to this area!!

I'll try to contact George direct about this and copy in someone at the council and at the developers. I will be objecting to the current plans on the basis outlined here and will also complain to the council that they have not carried out an environmental impact assessment and not followed the procedure on green spaces in their own strategy.

What place for legitimate nature conservation, environmental and amenity concerns in the face of high development pressures?

My MP, Bristol East's Kerry McCarthy, has been cajoled by myself and other local bloggers (here), into debating the sell-off of biodiverse green space on the Bristol to Bath Railway Path and the pros and cons of the proposed development on/near this land (see planning application details and form to submit comments, objections etc here). I was distinctly unimpressed with her initial unwillingness to engage in discussing the issue (she tried using her blog rules to try to avoid discussion at first but then engaged after further pressure from both the Bristol Blogger and Green Bristol Blog author Chris Hutt).

At least we have discussion somewhere now, thanks to bloggers and concerned locals. Bristol City Council has not consulted on the land sale, though the planning process now has to be gone through. I've not had a reply from Cllr Rosalie Walker (see here) on why this land is, apparently, not covered by the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy and have written to Kerry expressing concern about procedures and asking her to look into it.

I strongly disagree with the views my MP was pressed into giving on her blog, which appear to favour development on this high value green space which is home to such protected wildlife as badgers and sloworms (see Kerry's comments in italics below). What priority is Kerry giving to legitimate nature conservation, environmental and amenity value issues? Wouldn't we just build, on a small scale if its just a matter of scale*, anywhere eg Bristol's Downs, Leigh Woods, Ashton Court... if we shared Kerry's apparent attitude? The plans could and should in my view be scaled back and/or modified in the eastern portion at least, as the Railway Path is one of Bristol East's few good quality green spaces. This would address some of these issues whilst not impacting the development as a whole that much. Is this too much to ask??

MP Kerry McCarthy's view '...I've seen the Bloggers site, the Green Bristol site and others. I've looked at Square Peg's plans for the 'cycle houses' and am now following it up with various people (although I think I'm right in saying that no constituent has contacted me directly). I just haven't chosen to blog about it, and I'm not going to let other people dictate to me what I do and don't blog about. My initial view is that it doesn't look as if very much land is involved*, but I want to see for myself how the land is currently being used and whether the development would have a detrimental effect on the enjoyment/ use of the cycle path, or mean a significant loss of green space*. From the plans, it doesn't look as if that would be the case, but I take on board people's comments that the plans may be misleading.As for Kevin - several campaign leaflets have gone out to everyone in SGW and he's replying to everyone who has written back. If anyone raises this issue - and it hasn't come up on the doorsteps so far, not that I know - I'm sure he'll respond to them with his views.'
_____________________________________________________________

And more of her views '....And as for the railway path, as I've said it's a very small section* (100 metres acc to Chris) and I'm not opposed either to building upwards (I think it's overstating it a bit to call it a tower block) - how else would you suggest we find space for homes for the 19,000 people on the council waiting list? Obviously brownfield sites must be the priority, but it's not the entire solution. I'm also concerned about the number of houses being turned into flats, with associated problems re parking, and often anti-social behaviour from the people who rent them. We need family homes - but they've got to be built somewhere. Where do you suggest?'



Well, her own party's policy in Bristol says not on high quality green spaces !!

By George he's not got it!

Plenty of evidence around at present that architect George Ferguson (PPRIBA, BA, BArch, RWA according to here) doesn't get what is truly meant by sustainability. His column in todays Bristol Evening Post provides a good example to illustrate what I mean. He says this near the start,

'I am writing this from the sweltering heat of the Venice Architecture Biennale exhibition - I call it work. This city is wonderfully sustainable and dominated by pedestrians and water traffic.'

Later in the piece he contradicts this by referring to the 'massive annual maintenance bill, not to mention the mega-million flood defences.' of Venice. Far from being 'wonderfully sustainable' I'd say Venice has some serious sustainability problems to deal with, not least sinking/subsiding/flooding and the massive economic consequences George himself points out (see viability section on diagram).

So I'm left puzzled as to what overall sustainability scale gives Venice a 'wonderful' score (even though the dominance of pedestrian and water transport is an obvious and significant upside).

Add to this the example of the proposed 'cycle houses' development on/near the Bristol to Bath Railway Path. It's much favoured by George (his architects Acanthus Ferguson Mann have been retained by the developer Squarepeg) but consistent with sustainability thinking its not. One part of current plans would cause significant damage to a biodiverse green space, a negative change in its 'rural' character and a loss of visual amenity. See previous posts here, here and here, plus the Green Bristol Blog, Bristol Blogger and Keep the Bank Green .

Of course it might be that George does get sustainability but puts other factors ahead of it??

Sarah Palin: enemy of reason??

Republican US Presidential Candidate John McCain's running mate Sarah Palin, who has described herself as a pitbull wearing lipstick, is certainly a social conservative! She is a million miles away from progressive and green politics - and even worse has views consistent with being an enemy of reason!

She is on record as: very strongly opposing abortion; against "explicit sex-ed programs" in schools, backing abstinence-only education; opposing same-sex marriage; supporting capital punishment; supporting teaching creationism in public schools; supporting the right to bear arms, including handguns; promoting oil and natural gas resource development in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR); opposing federal listing of the polar bear as an endangered species; opposing the designation of the Cook Inlet beluga whale as an endangered species; supporting 'predator control' initiatives such as the aerial hunting of wolves; and unlike John McCain, she apparently does not believe that climate change is largely human-caused, though as a believer in creationism she is hardly keen on rational, scientific concepts like evidence and investigative testing and questioning!!

Flogging of Bristol green space: why no consultation?

Letter to the appropriate Executive Member of Bristol City Council's Cabinet seeking views and clarifications about the Bristol to Bath Railway Path land sell-off.

Dear Cllr Rosalie Walker

Please see the letter below I've just sent to the Bristol Evening Post [an adaptation of this blog post]. As the Executive Member for Culture and Healthy Communities I'd appreciate a response from you on the issues raised.

I'd be particularly grateful if you could clarify the status and designation of the land due to be sold on the Bristol to Path Railway Path. What are the council's 'stringent procedures' (according to the council's Pete Webb) on land selling that mean public consultation beforehand is not a requirement?

Does the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy not apply to this land? If not then could you please explain why? The strategy certainly mentions the Bristol to Path Railway Path as an example of an important green corridor so the lack of consultation before selling is most puzzling.

In your letter to me (dated 30 July), responding to my e-petition on the flogging of green spaces, you were at pains to empasise public consultation via the production of Area Green Space Plans. You also indicated that land outside the marginal, low value and surplus category would not be sold and yet land on the Railway Path is to be sold.

I look forward to your response.

___________________________________________________________________

Interesting link between this local issue and what new Green Party leader Caroline Lucas MEP has posted on her blog today (extract below):

Participation, co-operation and community ownership are the solutions to creating sustainable urban environments, Green Party leader and MEP for the South East will say at a panel debate in London today (11 September).

In a session entitled ‘Rethinking sustainability’ at the Stephen Lawrence 8th Annual Memorial Lecture, Dr Lucas will attack the ‘bricks and mortar’ approach of mainstream models of regeneration which prioritise quick profits over the need to empower community residents.

At the event hosted by the Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust, Dr Lucas will say:
“Plentiful green space, access to good public services and improved safety all lie at the heart of successful and sustainable communities. But in order to create neighbourhoods that really ‘work’ – economically, socially, culturally and environmentally – we also need to give people a stake in their communities.

“Reducing crime, improving prosperity, and ensuring access to services like a GP, good schools or just somewhere to kick a ball around are hugely important. Most of all though, a sense of community is crucial. Residents must be given genuine opportunities to participate in decision-making regarding their homes and areas.

Bristol to Bath Railway Path land sell-off: council response to my objection letter

I've today received a reply from Bristol City Council (below) to my letter objecting to the sell-off of Brstol to Bath Railway Path land owned by the public. My response, point by point, is in italics.




Dear Mr Vowles,

Further to your e-mail dated the 4th September, I respond to your concerns with regard to the potential sale of the land as follows:

The potential loss of the green corridor along side the Railway Path was raised as a concern by Bristol City Council's Nature Conservation officer. As such, if this sale proceeds it will be on the condition that Squarepeg engage in dialogue with this officer to ensure that proposals provide the necessary compensatory measures for any loss of habitat and vegetation.

*Attempting to compensate for loss of habitat and vegetation is highly problematic and sometimes controversial. ‘Nature knows best’ is a great guideline for conservation. The council’s Nature Conservation Officer will know that a potentially big compromise has been made. We may be getting better at compensation but measuring the full value of the land before development is in itself an issue. Then you cant simply and easily ‘put back’ mature, fully functioning ecosystems and so there is likely to be a loss of quality for some time and quality may never return to its best. When land is back to an ‘equivalent value’, if at all, is often very hard to say.

Some say that habitat compensation is based on an economists view of nature not an ecologists. It thus serves to accommodate development interests not those of sustainability, attempting to legitimize damaging economic growth.

With regard to the lack of consultation over the potential sale of the land adjacent to the railway path. Bristol City Council has stringent procedures which it must follow when disposing of land, these procedures do not require the council to carry out public consultation prior to disposing of this land.

*I had the opportunity to object to the land sale only because of what I read online in various blogs (here and here). This means that very many members of the public locally, who own the land via the council, have not had the same chance. This is unjust and undemocratic. Please could you reply outlining the ‘stringent procedures’ you refer to as I’d like to see exactly why they mean public consultation is not required. Even if technically not required under current procedures I am dismayed that the council does not take the view that consultation is desirable on grounds that openness and public participation is to be valued (I note that developers Squarepeg are keen to stress that they value an open approach in the report on this issue in the Bristol Evening Post).

I can confirm this sale is not a 'done deal' and that whilst discussions have taken place with Squarepeg over the potential sale. No terms have been agreed, when seeking authority to proceed with this sale your objection will be presented along with the proposed terms.

*Not a ‘done deal’??? But today’s Bristol Evening Post story refers to a spokesman for the council saying: "The developer of the chocolate factory is negotiating with the council, which is finalising an in-principle agreement to sell a small strip of land…’ Sounds to me like a deal is virtually done - what else does 'finalising an in-principle agreement' mean!?!?

If you wish to discuss this matter any further please do not hesitate to contact me on 0117 9224028.

*Please pass on my further objections along with my first letter. I'd appreciate a response to my points about the highly problematic nature of habitat compensation, what council 'stringent procedures' are, the lack of opting in to full and open participation of the public on the land sale and when exactly a deal is or is not done.

Yours sincerely


Peter Webb



Peter Webb
Portfolio Management Officer
Valuation Practice
Floor 6, B Bond
Smeaton Road
Bristol
BS1 6EE
Tel: 0117 922 4028
Fax: 0117 922 4676

Photo of land near the area concerned, by Martyn Whitelock. Lots of great photos of the path on his site http://railwaypath.blogspot.com/ well illustrating its green quality.

Tory/Labour pact running Bristol backs mass incineration option

The local Tory website includes a story entitled 'Tories boot big burner into touch' but then what did the Bristol Tories do in yesterday's debate on mass incineration for Bristol? They backed their Labour friends running the council and voted with them to allow the retention of the mass incineration option. Neither party has any green credibility at all.

But Mr Eddy and his party did not vote to throw out the policy, which includes an application to the Government next month for up to £80 million of public funding for the West's long-term waste treatment needs.
Instead, with Labour backing, they pushed through an amendment calling for "rigorous financial assessment" before any technology option was selected.
A small, all-party working group will be set up to look at ways to achieve greater cuts in the amount of waste households throw out.
A full outline business case will be referred to one of the council's scrutiny commissions on October 23, before a meeting of the ruling Labour cabinet on October 30. (full details here).